Fred the shred Posted August 21 Share Posted August 21 I know quite a lot of people one way or another and not one of them owns a gun. The figure of one in 28 households seems nonsensical to me it must have been arrived at by the number of gun certificates issued and then divided by households when some people , farmers and people who shoot for sport, must hold multiple guns so the idea that one on 28 households owns a gun is total rubbish. I wonder how long it took to take a statistician to work that one out, obviously some highly paid government worker who was filling in time until retirement. Completely bonkers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RecklessAbandon Posted August 21 Share Posted August 21 3 minutes ago, Fred the shred said: I know quite a lot of people one way or another and not one of them owns a gun. The figure of one in 28 households seems nonsensical to me it must have been arrived at by the number of gun certificates issued and then divided by households when some people , farmers and people who shoot for sport, must hold multiple guns so the idea that one on 28 households owns a gun is total rubbish. I wonder how long it took to take a statistician to work that one out, obviously some highly paid government worker who was filling in time until retirement. Completely bonkers. Based of the most recent census data, there is roughly 37,000 house holds on the IOM. If Derek's "1 in 28" is true, that means there is roughly 1,300 (ish) firearms which require registration with the IOM police. Based of the most recent census data, there is roughly 28.2 million house holds in the UK. If Derek's "1 in 76" is true, that means there is roughly 371,000 (ish) firearms which require registration with the UK police. Using that information, it means there are roughly 1 gun per 65 IOM people and 1 gun per 177 UK people. Looking at it that way its sounds like the IOM is closer to the Wild West than the rest of the UK. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Phantom Posted August 21 Share Posted August 21 (edited) 6 minutes ago, RecklessAbandon said: Based of the most recent census data, there is roughly 37,000 house holds on the IOM. If Derek's "1 in 28" is true, that means there is roughly 1,300 (ish) firearms which require registration with the IOM police. Based of the most recent census data, there is roughly 28.2 million house holds in the UK. If Derek's "1 in 76" is true, that means there is roughly 371,000 (ish) firearms which require registration with the UK police. Using that information, it means there are roughly 1 gun per 65 IOM people and 1 gun per 177 UK people. Looking at it that way its sounds like the IOM is closer to the Wild West than the rest of the UK. Not more wild west. Just more guns per person because of our different gun laws and statistically more 'farmers'. You really should get get to the ranges they do taster sessions. You'll see that most people with a licence have more than one gun. You'd be a bit more informed on your wild ramblings and fear of them then. Plus few gun crimes in the UK are carries out using legally held weapons. Edited August 21 by The Phantom Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted August 21 Share Posted August 21 21 minutes ago, RecklessAbandon said: If Derek's "1 in 28" is true, that means there is roughly 1,300 (ish) firearms which require registration with the IOM police. Far more than that, there are some 'collectors' here with dozens. As for households, it should be one person in the household, and the rest of the family shouldn't be able to touch. ...Unless you're that copper whose 3 digit combination got guessed by 2 of his step-children a few years back. Oooh, I wonder what the combination was? 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cissolt Posted August 21 Share Posted August 21 4 hours ago, Andy Onchan said: If there's been a change in policy, ie firearms now being carried without attending or en route to a specific incident, then we should know about it. I think that's not an unreasonable request. The new chief seems to have brought his counter terror playbook and is deploying armed officers willy nilly. A recent deployment was to a couple of young lads who sell cannabis, no history of weapons or any association with weapons. The island isn't less safe, we just have a trigger happy chief. Only a matter of time before we have an officer related accident, as the pulrose incident highlights 4 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted August 21 Share Posted August 21 4 minutes ago, cissolt said: The new chief seems to have brought his counter terror playbook and is deploying armed officers willy nilly. A recent deployment was to a couple of young lads who sell cannabis, no history of weapons or any association with weapons. The island isn't less safe, we just have a trigger happy chief. Only a matter of time before we have an officer related accident, as the pulrose incident highlights Gung-ho. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Two-lane Posted August 21 Share Posted August 21 The Chief Constable does not post here, so we do not get to read his views, but Derek Flint does. As a retired IoM Inspector it is reasonable to assume that his views align somewhat with those of the current police force. Any person on this forum can take a look at the video of the Pulrose event. The town drunk, so inebriated that he can barely stand up, and armed to the teeth with an empty Vodka bottle, was faced with several police officers pointing assault rifles at him (and shrieking constantly). If any of you think that that was a reasonable action to take, I am not averse to letting you know that (in my opinion) you do not have the intellectual capability to be a shelf filler. However, both Derek Flint and the Chief Constable think that response was reasonable. That is worrying. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daisy Posted August 21 Share Posted August 21 24 minutes ago, cissolt said: The new chief seems to have brought his counter terror playbook and is deploying armed officers willy nilly. A recent deployment was to a couple of young lads who sell cannabis, no history of weapons or any association with weapons. The island isn't less safe, we just have a trigger happy chief. Only a matter of time before we have an officer related accident, as the pulrose incident highlights Two cops with guns were wandering round supermarket buying their lunch the other day - gave the shop staff a bit of a shock. My understanding was that there would be pretty round the clock ARV capability not that armed cops would be fully armed buying a bap 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Two-lane Posted August 21 Share Posted August 21 4 minutes ago, daisy said: round the clock ARV capability My reaction to that is the same as when they turned up at a Peel school armed with assault rifles because of a bomb threat - who are they going to shoot? 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheesypeas Posted August 21 Share Posted August 21 Two armed police officers in Strand Street lunchtime today. Took me by surprise. Absolutely no need. It’s not Heathrow Airport. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek Flint Posted August 21 Share Posted August 21 2 hours ago, Fred the shred said: I know quite a lot of people one way or another and not one of them owns a gun. The figure of one in 28 households seems nonsensical to me it must have been arrived at by the number of gun certificates issued and then divided by households when some people , farmers and people who shoot for sport, must hold multiple guns so the idea that one on 28 households owns a gun is total rubbish. I wonder how long it took to take a statistician to work that one out, obviously some highly paid government worker who was filling in time until retirement. Completely bonkers. Yeah, we just made it up. That's what cops do. 2 hours ago, The Phantom said: Not more wild west. Just more guns per person because of our different gun laws and statistically more 'farmers'. You really should get get to the ranges they do taster sessions. You'll see that most people with a licence have more than one gun. You'd be a bit more informed on your wild ramblings and fear of them then. Plus few gun crimes in the UK are carries out using legally held weapons. Handguns are legal here. In the UK they haven't been since the Dunblane atrocity. Legally held by Thomas Hamilton An oh look - a different sort of lawfully held lethal weapon! https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4gl8vxrwexo Get the firearms thing out of your head. Armed police are about the application of force. See S6 Criminal Law Act. 1 hour ago, Two-lane said: The Chief Constable does not post here, so we do not get to read his views, but Derek Flint does. As a retired IoM Inspector it is reasonable to assume that his views align somewhat with those of the current police force. Any person on this forum can take a look at the video of the Pulrose event. The town drunk, so inebriated that he can barely stand up, and armed to the teeth with an empty Vodka bottle, was faced with several police officers pointing assault rifles at him (and shrieking constantly). If any of you think that that was a reasonable action to take, I am not averse to letting you know that (in my opinion) you do not have the intellectual capability to be a shelf filler. However, both Derek Flint and the Chief Constable think that response was reasonable. That is worrying. And you don't have the information and intelligence, threat and risk assessment, working strategy, law and policy review, suite of options. Neither did I. So it doesn't matter what we think. 6 hours ago, Andy Onchan said: If there's been a change in policy, ie firearms now being carried without attending or en route to a specific incident, then we should know about it. I think that's not an unreasonable request. Well ask then. You might want to read up on 'standing authority' and 'deployment' beforehand so you can frame your question accurately. 6 hours ago, RecklessAbandon said: I suppose it depends if you want to end up with twitchy fingered "warrior" police like in the States. It is a statistical certainty that the more police officers that are armed, the more likely that there will be a officer involved innocent shooting. https://hmicfrs.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/news/news-feed/police-forces-are-effective-in-the-deployment-of-firearms/ Look for the 0.02% bit... 5 hours ago, Andy Onchan said: The answer is quite simple.... it's never been necessary for plod to carry a firearm before now, unless travelling to/from a scene that requires them to be carried and used. The question is, what has changed in our society that requires that action, if indeed there is new policy for carrying firearms outside of an incident that requires them. It was Passing Time who suggested officers were 'ambling' and carrying arms. See earlier on authority and deployment. Let me give you a hypothetical scenario. An incident develops in Ramsey that meets the criteria for deployment of armed officers. what do you see as an acceptable length of time before those officers are on-scene? 5 hours ago, Bombay Bad Boy said: The vast majority would be match type rifles. How many of these are involved in incidents? I'm not talking about cases like someone might've sold a rifle to their mate, and forgot to update their ticket, or kept a few more rounds at home than they really should. Pint says it's somewhere between 'none' and 'bugger all', ever. The fact that you have to go back such a long period of time to get a meaningful quantity, speaks volumes. I don't https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-58197414 4 hours ago, Andy Onchan said: Are you suggesting that we've exhausted all methods to stop drugs from being imported and now have to resort to firearms? Really? It's nothing to do with drugs 2 hours ago, RecklessAbandon said: But armed police as a whole have shot people. That is why police as whole being armed is not the same as a select group at a select location being armed. See the 0.02% thing above 1 hour ago, cissolt said: The new chief seems to have brought his counter terror playbook and is deploying armed officers willy nilly. A recent deployment was to a couple of young lads who sell cannabis, no history of weapons or any association with weapons. The island isn't less safe, we just have a trigger happy chief. Only a matter of time before we have an officer related accident, as the pulrose incident highlights It's nothing to do with CT. It's a more informed understanding of threat and risk, public protection and accountability- see the hypothetical Ramsey scenario above. How might an inquiry see it? 1 hour ago, daisy said: Two cops with guns were wandering round supermarket buying their lunch the other day - gave the shop staff a bit of a shock. My understanding was that there would be pretty round the clock ARV capability not that armed cops would be fully armed buying a bap Back in the old days I remember rolling around the back of a Rover 827 trying to load magazines into MP5's and the hopping back into the front to recover the model 10's from the footwear safe. Oh, and the body armour is in the boot... Things have thankfully moved on. 2024 has arrived. I'd get used to it an let the Chief worry about all that accountability. Hope all that helps? 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarndyce Posted August 21 Share Posted August 21 (edited) . Edited August 21 by Jarndyce Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheesypeas Posted August 21 Share Posted August 21 8 minutes ago, Derek Flint said: Yeah, we just made it up. That's what cops do. Handguns are legal here. In the UK they haven't been since the Dunblane atrocity. Legally held by Thomas Hamilton An oh look - a different sort of lawfully held lethal weapon! https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4gl8vxrwexo Get the firearms thing out of your head. Armed police are about the application of force. See S6 Criminal Law Act. And you don't have the information and intelligence, threat and risk assessment, working strategy, law and policy review, suite of options. Neither did I. So it doesn't matter what we think. Well ask then. You might want to read up on 'standing authority' and 'deployment' beforehand so you can frame your question accurately. https://hmicfrs.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/news/news-feed/police-forces-are-effective-in-the-deployment-of-firearms/ Look for the 0.02% bit... See earlier on authority and deployment. Let me give you a hypothetical scenario. An incident develops in Ramsey that meets the criteria for deployment of armed officers. what do you see as an acceptable length of time before those officers are on-scene? I don't https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-58197414 It's nothing to do with drugs See the 0.02% thing above It's nothing to do with CT. It's a more informed understanding of threat and risk, public protection and accountability- see the hypothetical Ramsey scenario above. How might an inquiry see it? Back in the old days I remember rolling around the back of a Rover 827 trying to load magazines into MP5's and the hopping back into the front to recover the model 10's from the footwear safe. Oh, and the body armour is in the boot... Things have thankfully moved on. 2024 has arrived. I'd get used to it an let the Chief worry about all that accountability. Hope all that helps? You don’t need guns to protect the public in the Isle of Man. With all due respect Derek, the above just reads (to me) like bullshit bingo. No offence. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek Flint Posted August 21 Share Posted August 21 3 minutes ago, cheesypeas said: You don’t need guns to protect the public in the Isle of Man. With all due respect Derek, the above just reads (to me) like bullshit bingo. No offence. What do you propose they use? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheesypeas Posted August 21 Share Posted August 21 6 minutes ago, Derek Flint said: What do you propose they use? Reasonable force. Isn’t that what the law specifies ? Easy to pull a trigger when pepper spray would do the same job. That pissed guy in Pulrose could have been subdued without pointing guns at him. It’s just total overkill and makes the Police look silly. I could understand it if we lived in some dodgy inner city spot, but we don’t. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.